论文部分内容阅读
1986年安东尼·伯吉斯为美国版《发条橙》写序,表示“非常乐意与它断绝关系,”他说:“这部作品似乎天长地久,而我看重的其它作品却尘封土蒙。”怨怼之情可以理解,毕竟伯吉斯认为库布里克的电影歪曲了原作,但作者自己将《发条橙》看低了,我们这些读者观众没必要亦步亦趋。《发条橙》是部了不起的小说,《发条橙》是部伟大的影片。 说了不起,不是说喝迷幻奶、听《欢乐颂》这些有什么了不起,正如《1984》了不起并非因为发明了“老大哥”一词,少了它们,作品诚然不够完美,但绝非站不住脚。库布里克的《发条橙》,今日看来,仍有许多处理令人惊叹不止。像阿历克斯和两个小妞在房间里鬼混,那组快镜头,做爱的人机械反复,如同牵线木偶,又如一尊塑
In 1986, Anthony Burgess wrote an order for the American version of Clockwork Orange, saying “he is very happy to cut off the relationship with it,” he said. “This work seems to last forever, and the other works I value are dusty. After all, Burgess thinks Kubrick’s films distort the original, but the author himself looks down at the ”clockwork orange,“ and we audience readers do not have to take the necessary steps. ”Clockwork orange“ is a remarkable novel, ”Clockwork Orange“ is a great movie. Not to mention, not to say that drinking psychedelic milk, listen to ”Ode to Joy,“ these are remarkable, as ”1984“ is not remarkable because of the invention of the ”big brother“ without them, the work is certainly not perfect, but by no means not stand Live your feet. Kubrick’s ”Clockwork Orange" seems to us today that there are still many surprising things to do. Like Alex and two chick in the room fool around, the group of fast lenses, people who love sex repeatedly, as marionettes, another example of a plastic